Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26223 (KAR)

SRI H S CHENNAPPA v. THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC

WP/996/2019 · 2025-06-18

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 996 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 34965 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 996/2019: BETWEEN: SRI H S CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF SRI SUBAYYA GOWDA, RESIDING AT HANNAGUNDI VILLAGE, SANKADA HOLE POST,THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAIK V S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION, BEJAI, MANGALORE - 575 104, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A C BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A.QUASH THE AWARD DTD31.10.2017 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN I.D.A NO.13/2015 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODCUED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED AND ETC. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 IN WP NO. 34965/2018: BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC MANGALORE DIVISION, BEJAI, MANGALORE-575104, NOW REPRESENTED BY: THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC., CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BANGALORE - 560 027. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI A C BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. H S CHENNAPPA, S/O SUBAYYA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANNAGUNDI VILLAGE, SANKADA HOLE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, (D.K) MANGALURU, IN IDA NO.13/2015 PERTAINING TO THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2017, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-J. QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICE, LABOUR COURT, (D.K.) MANGALURU, IN IDA NO.13/2015, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-J ALONG WITH THIS WRIT PETITION. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER The Writ Petition No.996/2019 is filed by the employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The writ petition No.34965/2018 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Both petitions are filed assailing the award dated 31.10.2017 in I.D.A. No.13/2015 on the file of Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. In terms of the said award, the reference under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part. The order of dismissal dated 04.09.2015 is set-aside. The employee is ordered to be reinstated with 40% backwages and continuity of service with consequential benefits. 2. Aggrieved by the award interfering with the penalty of dismissal of service, the Corporation is before this Court and aggrieved by the award denying full - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 backwages and holding the employee guilty of charge No.2, the employee is before this Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the employee is referred to as the petitioner and Corporation is referred to as the respondent. 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the year 1992. The petitioner has mentioned his date of birth in the application for appointment as 30.06.1968. In the year 2007, investigation was carried out and the disciplinary enquiry was initiated framing two charges against the petitioner. First charge is related to the incorrect mentioning of date of birth in the application seeking appointment, the respondent alleges that the petitioner's date of birth is 30.06.1967 and not 30.06.1968 as mentioned in the application seeking appointment. Second charge is that the petitioner has forged the signature of the Depot Manager while availing loan from the bank. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 5. The petitioner denied charges. It is stated that the charge memo was withdrawn and the second charge memo was issued. The petitioner denied said charges, as well. Thereafter, the enquiry was held. The enquiry officer after recording evidence of the respondent/Corporation has concluded that the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner is correct date of birth and charge No.1 relating to incorrect date of birth is not proved. 6. As far as charge No.2 relating to the forgery of signature of the Depot Manager is concerned, the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that said charge is proved and consequently, second show cause notice was issued. The petitioner disputed the finding. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. 7. Aggrieved by the said penalty, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Mangalore. The parties led evidence and the Labour Court concluded that the disciplinary enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter, on the basis of evidence placed before it, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 Labour Court has held that the charge relating to forgery of signature of Depot Manager against the petitioner is established and the Labour Court found that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate and interfered with the said penalty and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and granted 40% backwages with all consequential benefits. Remaining 60% backwages is denied. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the petitioner and the respondent have filed the Writ Petitions referred to above. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employee would contend that the finding that the charge relating to forgery is established is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that no complaint is lodged by the Depot Manager alleging that his signature on Annexures-F and G produced before the Labour Court are forged. The Depot Manager whose signature is said to have been forged in Annexures-F & G is not examined. There is no forensic report that the signatures are forged. It is also submitted that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 proceeding is initiated pursuant to an anonymous complaint and the complainant is not examined. It is also submitted that original Annexures-F and G are not produced before the enquiry officer. Referring to these facts of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court erroneously concluded that charge relating to forgery is established. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation on the other hand would submit that the petitioner availed loan from a bank and while availing loan, he has produced two certificates marked at Annexures-F & G. Both certificates allegedly bear the signature of the Depot Manager. However, the enquiry officer has found that those signatures are not the signatures of the Depot Manager and he has compared the admitted signature of the Depot Manager with the disputed signature. It is also further submitted that the petitioner has not denied the charge of forgery of Annexures-F and G levelled against - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 him. Before the Labour Court as well as before the enquiry officer, the petitioner has not led evidence to rebut the evidence led against him. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court relating to proof of charge of forgery against the petitioner is justified. He would also submit that the Labour Court could not have interfered with the penalty of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority given the fact that the petitioner has forged the signature of the Depot Manager. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. There is no dispute that first charge relating to the erroneous date of birth is not proved and there is no challenge to the said finding. 12. As far as second charge relating to the forgery of the signature of the Depot Manager, the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court has concurrently held that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 signature in Annexures-F and G are forged. This Court has perused the finding of the enquiry officer as well as the finding of the Labour Court. The enquiry officer has concluded that the signature on Annexures-G and F do not tally with the admitted signature on Ex.M1 to Ex.M5. This Court has perused Ex.M1 to Ex.M5. Ex.M1 to Ex.M5 do not bear the signature of Depot Manager whose signature is doubted by the Corporation. Ex.M1 to Ex.M5 bear the signature of disciplinary authority. It is not the case of the respondent/Corporation that the Depot Manager is the Disciplinary Authority. 13. The Labour Court has also held that the charge related to forgery is established by referring to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The Labour Court failed to note that signature on Ex.M1 to Ex.M5 are not the signatures of the Depot Manager whose signature on Annexures-F & G are allegedly forged. 14. It is further relevant to note that the Labour Court as well as the enquiry officer have concluded that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 the petitioner has not disputed Annexures-F & G. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has disputed the charges levelled against him while he has issued reply to the show cause notice. This being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner has admitted the forgery of signatures on Annexures-F and G. 15. It is also relevant to note that the complainant is not examined. The proceeding is initiated on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The person whose signature is alleged to have been forged is not examined. The disputed signatures are not compared with the admitted signature. Forensic expert's opinion is not sought. This being the position, the finding recorded by the enquiry officer as well as the finding recorded by the Labour Court are without any evidence. Hence, the enquiry officer as well as the Labour Court could not have held that the charge against the petitioner relating to forgery is established. 16. For the reasons already recorded above, this Court is of the view that the charge of forgery in relation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 to Annexures-F and G are not established and there is no evidence to conclude that the petitioner has forged Annexures-F and G. 17. The Labour Court has passed an award for reinstatement of the employee on the premise that the punishments of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. The Labour Court has concluded that the charge of forgery is established. This Court for the reasons already recorded has concluded that the charge against the petitioner is not established. This being the position, this Court has to interfere with the award denying the full backwages passed by the Labour Court. It is noticed that the Labour Court has awarded 40% of the backwages with continuity of service and consequential relief. The petitioner is cleared of all charges. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the circumstance of the case where the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court are set- aside, the reduction of 60% backwages is harsh on the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21042 WP No. 996 of 2019 C/W WP No. 34965 of 2018 respondent-employee. It is noticed that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated pursuant to the discrepancy in the records relating to date of birth furnished by the employee. Thus, the disciplinary enquiry cannot be said to be without any basis and the discrepancy is properly explained in the course of enquiry. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of backwages as against 40% awarded by the Labour Court. 18. The consequential benefits awarded by this Court shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 19. Accordingly, WP No.996/2019 is partly allowed and W.P. No.34965/2018 is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30